hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Status of HBASE-3529 (Add search to HBase)?
Date Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:00:20 GMT
Data wouldn't go in ES, just index. For us a generic indexing service may
make sense but hey for others maybe not.

I'm not arguing against the idea of Lucene indexes in HBase, just pointing
out the issues with what's been done so far. Maybe the Lucene 4 APIs or the
blur stuff is a way forward.

On Thursday, September 20, 2012, Stack wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > But, what stopped progress here is a veto of HDFS side changes needed for
> > the implementation to get that performance.
> >
> We could have another go and even do it ourselves if enough of us
> thought it worth it.
> >  If we're just
> >> rebuilding ElasticSearch, wouldn't a simple Coprocessor connector that
> >> managed communication with ES be simpler and more performant?
> >
> Why have your data in two places if you could avoid it?
> St.Ack

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message